đŸ”Ŧ Chimeric Detective Report

Comprehensive Analysis of Chimeric Contigs in Viral Metagenomic Assembly

28
Contigs Analyzed
11
Contigs Split
17
Contigs Preserved
0.69
Mean Confidence

📊 Summary Visualizations

Chimera Type Distribution

Confidence Score Distributions

Decision Summary

Evidence Types Overview

🔍 Detailed Analysis Results

Contig ID Chimera Type Confidence Decision Breakpoint Evidence Types Explanation
contig_001 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 334 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 334, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 237 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 237, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 722 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 722, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1957 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,957, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3150 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,150, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 3992 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,992, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_003 technical_artifact 1.0 SPLIT 4608 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,608, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_006 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 5168 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,168, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_008 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 3125 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,125, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 340 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 340, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1495 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,495, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2776 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,776, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3553 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,553, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_010 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 356 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 356, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.19) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 379 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 379, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_013 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 367 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 367, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_013 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1140 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,140, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_013 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1736 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,736, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.53) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
contig_013 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 3520 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,520, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 244 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 244, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 875 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 875, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2379 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,379, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 3162 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,162, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 4047 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,047, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 6145 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 6,145, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_016 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 233 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 233, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 973 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 973, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2271 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,271, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 868 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 868, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.42) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.61.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 1923 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,923, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.46) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2702 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,702, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.17) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3231 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,231, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 4779 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,779, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 6429 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 6,429, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 785 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 785, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1948 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,948, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 2858 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,858, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 4120 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,120, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_020 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 923 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_020 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 923, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_020 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2132 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_020 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,132, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_020 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3069 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_020 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,069, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 327 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 327, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1501 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,501, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.79.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 167 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 167, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.19) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2034 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,034, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1910 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,910, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 389 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 389, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 922 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 922, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2016 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,016, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 560 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 560, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1812 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,812, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1086 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,086, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
cov_chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 972 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 972, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 723 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 723, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 1721 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,721, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 241 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 241, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_004 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 7473 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 7,473, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1679 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,679, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_009 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 4009 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,009, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 375 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 375, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_012 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 424 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 424, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_013 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 3412 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,412, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 588 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 588, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 1291 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,291, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.79.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2429 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,429, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3351 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,351, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.45) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 516 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 516, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2028 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,028, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 3425 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,425, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4247 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,247, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 815 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 815, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 1790 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,790, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 6741 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 6,741, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_018 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 7395 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 7,395, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 4971 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,971, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 217 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift, coverage_discontinuity
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 217, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 382 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 382, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 889 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 889, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1505 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,505, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 433 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 433, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1368 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,368, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2253 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,253, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.46) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1763 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,763, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2616 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,616, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 309 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 309, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1655 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,655, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 970 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 970, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
cov_chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 506 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 506, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.31) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
cov_chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1270 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,270, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 583 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 583, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.18) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1481 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,481, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.54) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_003 technical_artifact 1.0 SPLIT 1567 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,567, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2722 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,722, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3559 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,559, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
contig_003 technical_artifact 1.0 SPLIT 4831 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,831, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_005 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 291 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 291, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
contig_007 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 7458 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_007 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 7,458, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1739 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,739, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3426 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,426, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_013 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 736 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 736, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_013 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1355 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,355, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_013 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2486 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,486, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_013 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 4139 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,139, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 4299 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,299, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.50) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 522 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 522, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1882 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,882, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.15) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2188 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,188, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 218 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 218, there is a 1.6x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1692 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,692, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1278 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,278, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 1.0 SPLIT 2449 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,449, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 250 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 250, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 169 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 169, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
cov_chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1110 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,110, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 479 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 479, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 1275 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,275, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 5044 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,044, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 818 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 818, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2220 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,220, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
contig_003 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3276 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,276, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 628 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 628, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 1574 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,574, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2933 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,933, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4300 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,300, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.54) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 5316 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,316, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 202 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 202, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_012 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 6329 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_012 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 6,329, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_013 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1985 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,985, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_013 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2667 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,667, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 786 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 786, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 3421 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,421, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_015 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 420 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_015 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 420, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_018 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 385 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_018 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 385, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_020 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 782 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_020 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 782, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_020 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1688 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_020 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,688, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_020 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2258 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_020 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,258, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1613 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,613, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2226 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,226, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 1.0 SPLIT 1449 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,449, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.15) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.80.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 2410 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,410, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.44) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 167 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 167, there is a 1.8x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.06) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 1296 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,296, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2318 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,318, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 3629 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,629, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 4161 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,161, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 4774 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,774, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 848 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 848, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 1823 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,823, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.48) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2330 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,330, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 2999 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,999, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3742 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,742, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 4611 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,611, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1326 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,326, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.38) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_008 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 2866 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,866, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 1265 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,265, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_010 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 7018 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_010 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 7,018, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_011 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 6402 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_011 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 6,402, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_013 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2754 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,754, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 2873 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,873, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
contig_014 technical_artifact 1.0 SPLIT 3920 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,920, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_020 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 448 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_020 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 448, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.64.
contig_020 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1015 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_020 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,015, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.44) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.59.
contig_020 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2046 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_020 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,046, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 349 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 349, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 1.0 SPLIT 1782 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,782, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.25) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 1.0 SPLIT 2739 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,739, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.17) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.7 SPLIT 1492 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,492, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2539 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,539, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 1820 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,820, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.77.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 913 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 913, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.41) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_001 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 7276 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 7,276, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 720 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 720, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3320 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,320, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 4334 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,334, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.75.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2211 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,211, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 3914 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,914, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_005 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 5408 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 5,408, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 388 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 388, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.67.
contig_006 technical_artifact 1.0 PRESERVE 1513 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,513, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.24) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 3507 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,507, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.37) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3300 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,300, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.17) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_013 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 4006 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_013 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,006, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.33) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2025 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,025, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.52) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1516 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,516, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.43) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_017 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 444 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_017 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 444, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 269 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 269, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
chimeric_004 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 690 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 690, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
chimeric_005 technical_artifact 1.0 SPLIT 1062 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_005 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,062, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.78.
cov_chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 1042 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,042, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.15) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 915 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 915, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.40) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 3157 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,157, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.35) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4231 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,231, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.73.
contig_002 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4911 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,911, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.21) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 252 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 252, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.28) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 955 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 955, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.43) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2719 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,719, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.30) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.69.
contig_006 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 4746 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_006 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,746, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.49) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.66.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 996 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 996, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.27) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
contig_008 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2171 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_008 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,171, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
contig_009 technical_artifact 0.7 PRESERVE 2258 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_009 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,258, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.65.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 1301 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,301, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.23) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.80.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 3472 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,472, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.22) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
contig_019 technical_artifact 1.0 SPLIT 4319 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 4,319, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.39) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.76.
contig_020 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 3336 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_020 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 3,336, there is a 1.5x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.20) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.72.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 1.0 SPLIT 1159 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 1,159, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.29) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2299 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,299, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.68.
chimeric_003 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 163 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_003 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 163, there is a 1.7x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.18) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_004 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 356 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_004 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 356, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.36) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
contig_014 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 953 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_014 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 953, there is a 1.3x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.63.
contig_016 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 2766 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_016 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,766, there is a 1.4x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.44) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.
contig_019 technical_artifact 0.8 SPLIT 2018 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_019 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,018, there is a 1.2x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.43) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.62.
contig_020 technical_artifact 0.5 SPLIT 2933 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig contig_020 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 2,933, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.26) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.71.
chimeric_002 technical_artifact 0.8 PRESERVE 708 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig chimeric_002 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 708, there is a 1.1x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.32) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.70.
cov_chimeric_001 technical_artifact 0.5 PRESERVE 795 kmer_composition_change, gc_content_shift
Contig cov_chimeric_001 shows clear evidence of being a technical chimera resulting from misassembly. At position 795, there is a 1.0x change in read coverage and a significant shift in sequence composition. The low number of paired reads spanning this junction (spanning ratio: 0.34) further supports this being an assembly artifact rather than biological recombination. Confidence: 0.74.

📈 Individual Contig Details

Click on the links below to view detailed analysis for each chimeric contig:

â„šī¸ Methodology & Interpretation

Detection Methods

Chimeric contigs are detected using multiple complementary approaches:

  • Coverage Discontinuities: Sharp changes in read coverage depth
  • Sequence Composition: Changes in GC content and k-mer frequencies
  • Taxonomic Classification: Transitions between different viral/host lineages
  • Read Pair Orientation: Inconsistent paired-end read orientations

Classification Categories

  • Technical Artifacts: Assembly errors, typically split
  • PCR Chimeras: Amplification artifacts, typically split
  • Biological Recombination: Genuine recombination events, preserved
  • Provirus Integration: Virus-host integration sites, flagged

Confidence Scores

Confidence scores range from 0-1, with higher scores indicating stronger evidence for the classification. Scores above 0.8 are considered high confidence, 0.5-0.8 medium confidence, and below 0.5 low confidence.